The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Oh boy.

In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he was sent an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: “Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?”

The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy.

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Has a Speaker ever been from the minority party of the House?

I know every Speaker has been from the House (despite there being no requirement for him or her to come from the House)

This portion of the Wikipedia article on the Speaker is quite good.

Nothing prevents a speaker from being elected from the minority party if she gets enough turncoat votes from majority members. The Constitution does not specify how the House chooses the Speaker, merely that it does. Except in very unusual circumstances this has meant by majority vote, hence the current 218 requirement (the House, when there are no vacancies, has 435 members).

Here's one particularly bizarre instance in which they could not achieve a majority and settled for a plurality election:

Another, more prolonged fight occurred in 1855 in the 34th United States Congress. The old Whig Party had collapsed but no single party had emerged to replace it. Candidates opposing the Democrats had run under a bewildering variety of labels, including Whig, Republican, American (Know Nothing), and simply "Opposition". By the time Congress actually met in December 1855, most of the northerners were concentrated together as Republicans, while most of the southerners and a few northerners used the American or Know Nothing label. Opponents of the Democrats held a majority in House, with the party makeup of the 234 Representatives being 83 Democrats, 108 Republicans, and 43 Know Nothings (primarily southern oppositionists). The Democratic minority nominated William Alexander Richardson of Illinois as Speaker, but because of sectional distrust, the various oppositionists were unable to agree on a single candidate for Speaker. The Republicans supported Nathaniel Prentiss Banks of Massachusetts, who had been elected as a Know Nothing but was now largely identified with the Republicans. The southern Know Nothings supported first Humphrey Marshall of Kentucky, and then Henry M. Fuller of Pennsylvania. The voting went on for almost two months with no candidate able to secure a majority, until it was finally agreed to elect the Speaker by plurality vote, and Banks was elected.

So Banks was technically a minority speaker, as he was elected as a Know Nothing, which at less than 1/5th of the House had only the third-largest conference, though he caucused with the Republicans, who were a plurality (but not a majority) caucus.

Just four years later in 1859 they had a similar cluster-f-ck.

So, the good news is it's actually been worse before. The bad news is, how'd that work out?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

The bad news is, how'd that work out?

1859

*Calls up broker, tells broker to shift all assets to popcorn futures*

[joecct]

No, NO, NO!!!

This is money already obligated! Raising the debt ceiling is not spending. God, this needs stepe engraved on every conservative's gun so he can see it when he's fondling it.

Limiting your spending is fiscally responsible. Not paying your godd-mned credit card is just being a deadbeat!

Authorized, obligated, or expended?

DANNGER! ACCOUNTANT SPEAK!!!!

Authorizations give you the authority to spend the money. These bills originate in the various congressional committees. They're pretty, but you can't do much with an authorization.

The true power come from the House Ways and Means or Senate Appropriations committees. They give you the authority to spend money up to what they tell you, not what was authorized.

But you still can't do anything because you don't have the money to spend. For that you need the warrent from the Treasury to put money (quarterly, semiannually, or annually) into your cash account. Keep this number in mind it becomes important later. Every $$ that goes into your warrant takes cash from the overall government cash account.

The government gets cash from taxes, duties, fines among the usual sources. If that amount is insufficient, then the Treasury has to borrow money to get more cash. This borrowing affects the debt ceiling.

After a few intermediate steps done in the budget office, I can now spend money for what Congress allowed. Budget puts the money into your allocation account (ledger account 4601).

First I commit the funds. This rather useless step says you have sufficient funds remaining to spend.

Now that the funds have been committed, you can contract to spend them via a grant, purchase order, travel order and the like. Guess what? You can always change the amount if it hasn't been spent. It is a sin to obligate (contract) out more money than you have your allocation. It can be very embarrassing if you are over obligated at the end of the quarter.

Now comes cash out the door. When you pay somebody either by drawing down on one of the above instruments or using a government credit/travel card or biweekly payroll, you finally draw down on the cash in the your bank account. It is a grave sin to overdraw your cash. People can get fired.

Total obligations = obligations (ledger accounts 4801 & 4802) + expenditures (4901 & 4902). Total obligations cannot exceed the allocation (4601) from budget. And the allocation cannot exceed your warrant.

If you're coming close to your balance, you have to stop paying bills or cancel contracts or cancel travel.

END ACCOUNT SPEAK

Any contract has a clause, "subject to available funds." If there isn't any money, you deobligate the contract to get under the ceiling, or you don't pay the invoice (which subjects you to prompt payment penalties).

So,in the end,the Federal government should live within its means. That is not saying debt is bad. As ordinary citizens we have good debt and bad debt. Good debt could be classified as mortgages and car loans. Bad debt could be classified as credit card debt.

Uncle Sam borrowing money to build a building is an example of good debt. Borrowing money to pay your ordinary bills is had debt.

That's why you have to look at the US debt. If was incurred to pay current bills,I have problems. If it was to build a building, no problem.

[Rover]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Oh boy.

Yeah....it just seemed like "not winning over the Freedom Caucus" wasn't enough to send the guy packing. He always knew he wasn't going to win their initial vote and would have to negotiate with them before the public vote at the end of the month. Not sure if this particular allegation with Ellmers is true but if he's banging his secretary instead he has the same problem.

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Authorized, obligated, or expended?

DANNGER! ACCOUNTANT SPEAK!!!!

Authorizations give you the authority to spend the money. These bills originate in the various congressional committees. They're pretty, but you can't do much with an authorization.

The true power come from the House Ways and Means or Senate Appropriations committees. They give you the authority to spend money up to what they tell you, not what was authorized.

But you still can't do anything because you don't have the money to spend. For that you need the warrent from the Treasury to put money (quarterly, semiannually, or annually) into your cash account. Keep this number in mind it becomes important later. Every $$ that goes into your warrant takes cash from the overall government cash account.

The government gets cash from taxes, duties, fines among the usual sources. If that amount is insufficient, then the Treasury has to borrow money to get more cash. This borrowing affects the debt ceiling.

After a few intermediate steps done in the budget office, I can now spend money for what Congress allowed. Budget puts the money into your allocation account (ledger account 4601).

First I commit the funds. This rather useless step says you have sufficient funds remaining to spend.

Now that the funds have been committed, you can contract to spend them via a grant, purchase order, travel order and the like. Guess what? You can always change the amount if it hasn't been spent. It is a sin to obligate (contract) out more money than you have your allocation. It can be very embarrassing if you are over obligated at the end of the quarter.

Now comes cash out the door. When you pay somebody either by drawing down on one of the above instruments or using a government credit/travel card or biweekly payroll, you finally draw down on the cash in the your bank account. It is a grave sin to overdraw your cash. People can get fired.

Total obligations = obligations (ledger accounts 4801 & 4802) + expenditures (4901 & 4902). Total obligations cannot exceed the allocation (4601) from budget. And the allocation cannot exceed your warrant.

If you're coming close to your balance, you have to stop paying bills or cancel contracts or cancel travel.

END ACCOUNT SPEAK

Any contract has a clause, "subject to available funds." If there isn't any money, you deobligate the contract to get under the ceiling, or you don't pay the invoice (which subjects you to prompt payment penalties).

So,in the end,the Federal government should live within its means. That is not saying debt is bad. As ordinary citizens we have good debt and bad debt. Good debt could be classified as mortgages and car loans. Bad debt could be classified as credit card debt.

Uncle Sam borrowing money to build a building is an example of good debt. Borrowing money to pay your ordinary bills is had debt.

That's why you have to look at the US debt. If was incurred to pay current bills,I have problems. If it was to build a building, no problem.

This is excellent, thank you.

How does the debt ceiling factor into the above discussion? When the government is running up debt it means its total obligations are more than the amount of cash it has on hand, right? The debt ceiling seems to be an unnecessary and fictitious limit to this number. The limiting should take place much earlier. The government estimates its revenue and then approves a budget -- if that budget is in deficit then that is the point where the government is in fact defining the amount of debt it is willing to accrue.

You get to choose not to spend the money when you're out shopping, not when the bill comes. It you fail to honor the bill you're not living within your means, you're just a bad credit risk.

[unofan]

Authorized, obligated, or expended?

DANNGER! ACCOUNTANT SPEAK!!!!

Authorizations give you the authority to spend the money. These bills originate in the various congressional committees. They're pretty, but you can't do much with an authorization.

The true power come from the House Ways and Means or Senate Appropriations committees. They give you the authority to spend money up to what they tell you, not what was authorized.

But you still can't do anything because you don't have the money to spend. For that you need the warrent from the Treasury to put money (quarterly, semiannually, or annually) into your cash account. Keep this number in mind it becomes important later. Every $$ that goes into your warrant takes cash from the overall government cash account.

The government gets cash from taxes, duties, fines among the usual sources. If that amount is insufficient, then the Treasury has to borrow money to get more cash. This borrowing affects the debt ceiling.

After a few intermediate steps done in the budget office, I can now spend money for what Congress allowed. Budget puts the money into your allocation account (ledger account 4601).

First I commit the funds. This rather useless step says you have sufficient funds remaining to spend.

Now that the funds have been committed, you can contract to spend them via a grant, purchase order, travel order and the like. Guess what? You can always change the amount if it hasn't been spent. It is a sin to obligate (contract) out more money than you have your allocation. It can be very embarrassing if you are over obligated at the end of the quarter.

Now comes cash out the door. When you pay somebody either by drawing down on one of the above instruments or using a government credit/travel card or biweekly payroll, you finally draw down on the cash in the your bank account. It is a grave sin to overdraw your cash. People can get fired.

Total obligations = obligations (ledger accounts 4801 & 4802) + expenditures (4901 & 4902). Total obligations cannot exceed the allocation (4601) from budget. And the allocation cannot exceed your warrant.

If you're coming close to your balance, you have to stop paying bills or cancel contracts or cancel travel.

END ACCOUNT SPEAK

Any contract has a clause, "subject to available funds." If there isn't any money, you deobligate the contract to get under the ceiling, or you don't pay the invoice (which subjects you to prompt payment penalties).

So,in the end,the Federal government should live within its means. That is not saying debt is bad. As ordinary citizens we have good debt and bad debt. Good debt could be classified as mortgages and car loans. Bad debt could be classified as credit card debt.

Uncle Sam borrowing money to build a building is an example of good debt. Borrowing money to pay your ordinary bills is had debt.

That's why you have to look at the US debt. If was incurred to pay current bills,I have problems. If it was to build a building, no problem.

That's nice and all, but it had nothing to do with the debt ceiling, which is an artificial construct that, as Kepler has put it, is simply the government agreeing to pay what it already owes. Everything you're referencing is part of the budgeting process. If you think the debt is bad, then stop passing budgets that increase the debt.

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Yeah....it just seemed like "not winning over the Freedom Caucus" wasn't enough to send the guy packing. He always knew he wasn't going to win their initial vote and would have to negotiate with them before the public vote at the end of the month. Not sure if this particular allegation with Ellmers is true but if he's banging his secretary instead he has the same problem.

I'm shocked it got to the point that the guy actually sent the note (and apparently e-blasted half of the Hill with it). Trent Lott would have gotten it all done on the D/L. Just another instance of today's pols not being even a shadow of their predecessors. Can't anybody here play this game?

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Awesome.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

This is excellent, thank you.

How does the debt ceiling factor into the above discussion? When the government is running up debt it means its total obligations are more than the amount of cash it has on hand, right? The debt ceiling seems to be an unnecessary and fictitious limit to this number. The limiting should take place much earlier. The government estimates its revenue and then approves a budget -- if that budget is in deficit then that is the point where the government is in fact defining the amount of debt it is willing to accrue.

You get to choose not to spend the money when you're out shopping, not when the bill comes. It you fail to honor the bill you're not living within your means, you're just a bad credit risk.

You speak as though federal budgeting is a rational process.

[Handyman]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Burn baby burn!

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

No, NO, NO!!!

This is money already obligated! Raising the debt ceiling is not spending. God, this needs to be engraved on every conservative's gun so he can see it when he's fondling it.

Limiting your spending is fiscally responsible. Not paying your godd-mned credit card is just being a deadbeat!

Then why, about five minutes after each time the debt limit is raised, new spending happens? It's basically having a credit card, maxing it out, and then calling the credit card company asking for the credit limit to be raised because you maxed out the card, all while you've been making minimum payments. Why else is one going to think you want a higher limit? So you can spend more! I know they don't teach logic at ivy league universities, but you cannot POSSIBLY be that out of mind.

[Kepler]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Great piece that will get Rover's seal of approval.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Then why, about five minutes after each time the debt limit is raised, new spending happens? It's basically having a credit card, maxing it out, and then calling the credit card company asking for the credit limit to be raised because you maxed out the card, all while you've been making minimum payments. Why else is one going to think you want a higher limit? So you can spend more! I know they don't teach logic at ivy league universities, but you cannot POSSIBLY be that out of mind.

It's beyond that. It's somehow managing to commit to spending more money via your credit card than your max limit, than hoping that your max limit always gets increased to match the next increment of spending that you don't have to spend to begin with. If the federal government had a responsible bone in its body we wouldn't be talking about raising the debt limit seemingly almost all the time to begin with. It's kinda like driving recklessly without your seat belt on and getting mad at the seat belt indicator for beeping at you to put on your seat belt. Only in the beltway can stuff like this get so twisted around. Just like how the feds talk about not getting as big of an increase in a given piece of the budget as they had asked for as having their funding cut. First time I heard that one I really had a hard time believing people were so disingenuous and other people would buy it. It's much easier to believe now.